This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi mate wondering if you could add the ira attack in strabane last week to the list because i don’t know how to 178.167.224.151 ( talk) 18:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
To be included, entries must be notable (have a stand-alone article) and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism".If it can be demonstrated that the attack meets these inclusion criteria, it can be added. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mars in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Benji man -- Benji man ( talk) 14:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The article Mars in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mars in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Mars in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Benji man -- Benji man ( talk) 16:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, what's wrong with my edit to Jupiter in fiction which you have reverted? Goudzovski ( talk) 09:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi TompaDompa, I think you can safely proceed with the GA. We're not in dispute about tenses - we can have them past or present as you like, but I don't think either of us mind a lot which it is - so I don't really see what we need to wait for. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Yo, Tompa, Avatar 2 has made 881 million in ten days, search up "Avatar 2, box office". — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaydenCool ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
On 1 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mars in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first fictional depiction of the moons of Mars predates their discovery by a century and a half? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mars in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Mars in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist.) and WP:PROPORTION (
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.). Appropriate sourcing for the article Mars in fiction could for instance be the "Mars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or the book Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination by Robert Markley—sources specifically about the topic of Mars in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 09:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa: as per your message on my talk page, I should propose a joint afford to uplift the movie's Wiki page to GA and then FA. Please join hands. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 14:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Mathematical rules always have figures being rounded up. Please stop preventing others from rounding up if a figure is closer to it than the one you're rounding down it to. The point is about it being closer. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 01:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
we can always say it made about or nearly $1.5 billionYes, we can. That's what I said (
one would have to say that Top Gun: Maverick has grossed almost $1.5 billion). But we can't say that it has grossed $1.5 billion with no qualifier, because that's an untrue exaggeration. Exaggerating grosses by rounding them charitably is not neutral, nor would rounding a figure that is more impressive the lower it is (as in my Usain Bolt example above) down be. There are alternatives to inappropriately rounding figures in such ways—one of them is to give the full figure (appropriate for the Usain Bolt example), another is to use a qualifier (and sometimes it is better to say "over $1.4 billion" than "almost $1.5 billion"), a third is to consistently round "conservatively" (i.e. to a less impressive figure), and a fourth is to not mention the figure in the first place.
accurate is a mistake too because it's approximateThat's not necessarily a contradiction. Something can be accurate without being precise. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It has esentially reached that number by virtue of being closer.No it hasn't. And that's the problem.If something costs $5,000 and I have $4,999, I can't afford it, and so it would be inaccurate to say that I have $5,000. Context matters. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It dod gross $1.030 billion essentially– "essentially" does a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. More accurately, it did not gross $1.030 billion but fell short of that amount.You're kind of avoiding the question(s), so let's go with a straightforward one. How many movies would you say have grossed $3 billion?I shouldn't have to explain to you that when it comes to money, which number is larger is more important than which number is closer. That is the context that you are missing. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
All those lists you cite are talking about those whose actual accurate gross exceeded $1 billionYes, that's what I'm saying. That's the standard interpretation of having grossed $1 billion. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Something you keep avoiding.Yes, I keep avoiding rounding unnecessarily. Thats's a point I made way above (
There are alternatives to inappropriately rounding figures in such ways—one of them is to give the full figureand
Sometimes, a different level of precision should be used.). As you say yourself,
Of course Wikipedia tends to be more expansive and never restricts rounding to just one digit.We have no reason to round figures in a way that misleads our readers, since we have other options.
We aren't being accurate on this site.We're supposed to be. Not necessarily precise all the time, but certainly accurate. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I keep avoiding rounding unnecessarily.No, you avoid it because you simply don't like it and want to follow your own rules. Yes we do have a reason, and that is MOS:ARTCON (consistency) as well as WP:NEUTRALITY. MOS:LARGENUM clearly states examples where you should round up instead of rounding down. 9,996 population is rounded to 10,000. $8,462,247.63 to $8.5 million. Please do not go against Wikipedia guidelines or decide your own definition of accuracy. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 00:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The town was ineligible because its official census figure (9,996) fell short of the statutory minimum of ten thousandas one where which number is larger is important in context. MOS:ARTCON has nothing to do with this; it's about WP:ENGVAR. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
You're saying "leave out" as if I'm doing some sort of conspiracy, there's nothing stopping you from adding a caveat anywhere. Can you find me any part of which says rounding up is prohibited or you must only round up with caveats? Because I don't see any such thing. You say context matters, but all I see is you making your own context. MOS:ARTCON is about consistent language of articles. And people round up numbers when they're talking approximately, not downwards. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 00:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Also I re-read the guideline. What it says is "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." The informative part was about "unusual case in which the full-precision official figure is truly informative." In this case where you have to state the actual precise population isn't 10,000 due to it being ineligible for something. Regarding caveats, it's only in case a reader might be misled. None of the conditions are happening in case of these movies with such small figures. You're saying something what the policy doesn't say. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 01:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks alot for your feedback on Archie Mafeje. I will go through it and amend accordingly. I will try to use the peer review process before jumping to GA to avoid wasting people time. Again, thanks and much appreciated FuzzyMagma ( talk) 13:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Ss3ded 2A00:23C4:772C:1B01:2C08:7D34:BEE3:B5E9 ( talk) 18:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Time viewer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma ( talk) 16:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saturn in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maplestrip -- Maplestrip ( talk) 13:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The article Time viewer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Time viewer for comments about the article, and Talk:Time viewer/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma ( talk) 09:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Given the amount of unsourced/self-published text that you've located in the Variants section, should this article go to WP:GAR? Or perhaps it could just be radically pruned in a week or two if no-one comes up with some better sources? MichaelMaggs ( talk) 11:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Good Article Barnstar | |
For your recent GA reviews, especially Tolkien and your magnum opus fungi in art, which currently stands at over 7,012 words long. Your attention to detail and knowledge of the relevant policies is admirable. Keep up the great work! ツLunaEatsTuna ( 💬)— 22:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
The article Saturn in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saturn in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Saturn in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maplestrip -- Maplestrip ( talk) 09:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 00:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia and Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 15:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia for comments about the article, and Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 17:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, TompaDompa. I greatly appreciate your dedication on assessing the page. It's a lot of work, and I see how this is helping improving the page. I will follow point by point, and try to ping you as you are already familiar with the page. Again, thank you! CorradoNai ( talk) 04:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
On 24 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Saturn in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the visual appeal of its rings (pictured) has made Saturn popular in fiction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saturn in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Saturn in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
On 1 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Time viewer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that science fiction authors who want to avoid the paradoxes associated with time travel may instead write about time viewers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Time viewer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Time viewer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
On 11 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Brian Stableford blamed the cancellation of the follow-up to his 2006 book Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia on the availability of information online? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uranus in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The article Uranus in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uranus in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Uranus in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sun in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The article Sun in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sun in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Sun in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Just looking at your talk page above, this seems well deserved :)
I hope I'll be able to return to the topic area in the near future and help you out a bit! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
Please see Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. What do you think about the new hook? BorgQueen ( talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Neptune in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Neptune in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Neptune in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 19:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
You are, I think, the person who brought the "...in fiction" articles for every planet in this system, and the Sun, to GA. Thank you for your dedication. Heavy Water ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
On 7 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sun in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1961 film Barabbas portrayed a solar eclipse (pictured) by shooting during a real one? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sun in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Sun in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be attempting a GT of the main celestial bodies of the Solar System as portrayed in fiction. If you are, I think that is a very interesting idea. Either way, keep up the good work! QuicoleJR ( talk) 01:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
On 5 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Uranus in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in early depictions of Uranus in fiction, the planet was portrayed as solid (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Uranus in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Uranus in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 8,882 views (740.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2023 – nice work! |
Bruxton ( talk) 15:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
On 12 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neptune in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that English-speaking elephants can be okay on Neptune in fiction, but a solid surface is not? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neptune in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Neptune in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The article looks much better thanks to you, but I wonder about the need to have every one of his books cited. Could we just do a blanket attribution somehow rather than using the same cites on every line? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 01:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The Science Fiction Barnstar | ||
I know you're still working on it, but you've already earned this. Thanks for doing such a great job overhauling George Griffith. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) |
Aah I am such a bad Wikipedia editor. Doing it here instead. Sorry to mess up your talk page. I wen't through all (I think) your comment on the Fungi in art page and I nominated the page for peer review. Anyways, thanks for all the work you have put into this. Cheers CorradoNai ( talk) 15:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
The Old Cosmonaut and the Construction Worker Dream of Mars is very good. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 03:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jack4576 -- Jack4576 ( talk) 07:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance for comments about the article, and Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jack4576 -- Jack4576 ( talk) 09:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
On 7 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bellona's Husband: A Romance, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1887 novel Bellona's Husband: A Romance by William James Roe "may be the earliest example of the time in reverse tale presented in full-fledged narrative form"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bellona's Husband: A Romance. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Bellona's Husband: A Romance), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
planets in fiction
Thank you for quality articles such as Bellona's Husband: A Romance, for the series from Moon in fiction to planets and sun and more, for quality reviewing, for a user name I will remember, for FAC ambition ( Mars in fiction), "That's a great find and a very interesting read (to me, at least)", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2857 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
On 8 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Honeymoon in Space, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Griffith's 1901 novel A Honeymoon in Space contains what may be the first space suits in fiction (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Honeymoon in Space. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, A Honeymoon in Space), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Started, DYKed, enjoy :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi -- just stopping by to say how impressed I have been with your diligence at the FAC for Mars in fiction. I thought when you took it on that it would be very tough to get it through FAC -- selecting exactly what to put in, and imposing readable coherence on an article that must always be threatening to degenerate into lists, must have been a nightmare. You've done an extraordinary job, and the result is a marvellous bit of reference material -- exactly what the encyclopedia needs. I also happened to notice that you'd failed Boots theory, and took a look at the review page out of curiosity, and was impressed again, this time at the way you zeroed in on exactly what was weak in the article. I wish all nominators and reviewers were able to meet the high standards you're setting. Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Honeymoon in Space you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress ( talk) 02:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The article A Honeymoon in Space you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:A Honeymoon in Space and Talk:A Honeymoon in Space/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress ( talk) 03:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The article A Honeymoon in Space you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Honeymoon in Space for comments about the article, and Talk:A Honeymoon in Space/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress ( talk) 03:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 31 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 31, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. There's a lot of pencil-whipping that goes on at DYK. It's nice when a reviewer digs a little deeper and finds problems that need fixing. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 09:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pluto in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 16:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - opening IP failed to notify you, thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Youve recently indicated uncited paragraphs on the Abdullahi dan Fodio page. I’ve made citations for these paragraphs. Are there any other parts of the article that needs further improvements? BlueSahelian ( talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance for comments about the article, and Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 02:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Pluto in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pluto in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Pluto in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 11:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
On 31 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pluto in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fictional life on Pluto has included mist creatures and crystals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pluto in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Pluto in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I just reported Vasai1509 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo Refachinho. Given that you seem to be an expert on this socker, I am asking for your input at the investigation. Thank you! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know I'm around tomorrow, then out of office for some days. Will be able to fix small and simple things intermittently; anything complex will have to wait. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Bro, see this article Castillo San Felipe del Morro, Spanish Empire, Battle of Colhuacatonco, this user:Pepallis is contantly making vandalism in this page, also reverting my additions, I suggest take a look on him.-- Arequipa belleza ( talk) 05:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I haven't had time to make comments, but I started reading and noticed you mentioned both planetary romance and sword and planet, so I wanted to let you know I've just proposed here that the latter should redirect to the former, in case you have an opinion on it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Planetary Romance, also called Sword and Planetin the foreword to Old Venus. I can't really take credit for finding that or adding it to the Venus in fiction article however— Piotrus discovered the source and added the relevant part with this edit before I started editing the article. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years and Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie ( talk) 02:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Plunge into Space you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years for comments about the article, and Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie ( talk) 07:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
How is the Good Topic going? QuicoleJR ( talk) 00:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Good morning, I wanted to tell you that I have received an IP or account blocking due to vandalism without doing anything wrong, you tell me that the information that I have put in Spanish Empire is false, I tell you that I have obtained the information from a reliable source and I have calculated it myself in this case. Thank you and I hope you help me. WikiPat23 ( talk) 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The article A Plunge into Space you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Plunge into Space for comments about the article, and Talk:A Plunge into Space/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 07:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Imagining Mars: A Literary History you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Frzzl -- Frzzl ( talk) 10:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi mate wondering if you could add the ira attack in strabane last week to the list because i don’t know how to 178.167.224.151 ( talk) 18:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
To be included, entries must be notable (have a stand-alone article) and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism".If it can be demonstrated that the attack meets these inclusion criteria, it can be added. TompaDompa ( talk) 19:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mars in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Benji man -- Benji man ( talk) 14:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The article Mars in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mars in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Mars in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Benji man -- Benji man ( talk) 16:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, what's wrong with my edit to Jupiter in fiction which you have reverted? Goudzovski ( talk) 09:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi TompaDompa, I think you can safely proceed with the GA. We're not in dispute about tenses - we can have them past or present as you like, but I don't think either of us mind a lot which it is - so I don't really see what we need to wait for. All the best, Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Yo, Tompa, Avatar 2 has made 881 million in ten days, search up "Avatar 2, box office". — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaydenCool ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
On 1 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mars in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first fictional depiction of the moons of Mars predates their discovery by a century and a half? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mars in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Mars in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist.) and WP:PROPORTION (
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.). Appropriate sourcing for the article Mars in fiction could for instance be the "Mars" entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction or the book Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination by Robert Markley—sources specifically about the topic of Mars in fiction. TompaDompa ( talk) 09:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa: as per your message on my talk page, I should propose a joint afford to uplift the movie's Wiki page to GA and then FA. Please join hands. Twinkle1990 ( talk) 14:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Mathematical rules always have figures being rounded up. Please stop preventing others from rounding up if a figure is closer to it than the one you're rounding down it to. The point is about it being closer. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 01:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
we can always say it made about or nearly $1.5 billionYes, we can. That's what I said (
one would have to say that Top Gun: Maverick has grossed almost $1.5 billion). But we can't say that it has grossed $1.5 billion with no qualifier, because that's an untrue exaggeration. Exaggerating grosses by rounding them charitably is not neutral, nor would rounding a figure that is more impressive the lower it is (as in my Usain Bolt example above) down be. There are alternatives to inappropriately rounding figures in such ways—one of them is to give the full figure (appropriate for the Usain Bolt example), another is to use a qualifier (and sometimes it is better to say "over $1.4 billion" than "almost $1.5 billion"), a third is to consistently round "conservatively" (i.e. to a less impressive figure), and a fourth is to not mention the figure in the first place.
accurate is a mistake too because it's approximateThat's not necessarily a contradiction. Something can be accurate without being precise. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It has esentially reached that number by virtue of being closer.No it hasn't. And that's the problem.If something costs $5,000 and I have $4,999, I can't afford it, and so it would be inaccurate to say that I have $5,000. Context matters. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It dod gross $1.030 billion essentially– "essentially" does a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. More accurately, it did not gross $1.030 billion but fell short of that amount.You're kind of avoiding the question(s), so let's go with a straightforward one. How many movies would you say have grossed $3 billion?I shouldn't have to explain to you that when it comes to money, which number is larger is more important than which number is closer. That is the context that you are missing. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
All those lists you cite are talking about those whose actual accurate gross exceeded $1 billionYes, that's what I'm saying. That's the standard interpretation of having grossed $1 billion. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Something you keep avoiding.Yes, I keep avoiding rounding unnecessarily. Thats's a point I made way above (
There are alternatives to inappropriately rounding figures in such ways—one of them is to give the full figureand
Sometimes, a different level of precision should be used.). As you say yourself,
Of course Wikipedia tends to be more expansive and never restricts rounding to just one digit.We have no reason to round figures in a way that misleads our readers, since we have other options.
We aren't being accurate on this site.We're supposed to be. Not necessarily precise all the time, but certainly accurate. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I keep avoiding rounding unnecessarily.No, you avoid it because you simply don't like it and want to follow your own rules. Yes we do have a reason, and that is MOS:ARTCON (consistency) as well as WP:NEUTRALITY. MOS:LARGENUM clearly states examples where you should round up instead of rounding down. 9,996 population is rounded to 10,000. $8,462,247.63 to $8.5 million. Please do not go against Wikipedia guidelines or decide your own definition of accuracy. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 00:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The town was ineligible because its official census figure (9,996) fell short of the statutory minimum of ten thousandas one where which number is larger is important in context. MOS:ARTCON has nothing to do with this; it's about WP:ENGVAR. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
You're saying "leave out" as if I'm doing some sort of conspiracy, there's nothing stopping you from adding a caveat anywhere. Can you find me any part of which says rounding up is prohibited or you must only round up with caveats? Because I don't see any such thing. You say context matters, but all I see is you making your own context. MOS:ARTCON is about consistent language of articles. And people round up numbers when they're talking approximately, not downwards. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 00:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Also I re-read the guideline. What it says is "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." The informative part was about "unusual case in which the full-precision official figure is truly informative." In this case where you have to state the actual precise population isn't 10,000 due to it being ineligible for something. Regarding caveats, it's only in case a reader might be misled. None of the conditions are happening in case of these movies with such small figures. You're saying something what the policy doesn't say. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 01:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks alot for your feedback on Archie Mafeje. I will go through it and amend accordingly. I will try to use the peer review process before jumping to GA to avoid wasting people time. Again, thanks and much appreciated FuzzyMagma ( talk) 13:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Ss3ded 2A00:23C4:772C:1B01:2C08:7D34:BEE3:B5E9 ( talk) 18:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Time viewer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma ( talk) 16:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Saturn in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maplestrip -- Maplestrip ( talk) 13:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The article Time viewer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Time viewer for comments about the article, and Talk:Time viewer/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma ( talk) 09:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Given the amount of unsourced/self-published text that you've located in the Variants section, should this article go to WP:GAR? Or perhaps it could just be radically pruned in a week or two if no-one comes up with some better sources? MichaelMaggs ( talk) 11:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Good Article Barnstar | |
For your recent GA reviews, especially Tolkien and your magnum opus fungi in art, which currently stands at over 7,012 words long. Your attention to detail and knowledge of the relevant policies is admirable. Keep up the great work! ツLunaEatsTuna ( 💬)— 22:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
The article Saturn in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Saturn in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Saturn in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Maplestrip -- Maplestrip ( talk) 09:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 00:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia and Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 15:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
The article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia for comments about the article, and Talk:Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna ( talk) 17:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, TompaDompa. I greatly appreciate your dedication on assessing the page. It's a lot of work, and I see how this is helping improving the page. I will follow point by point, and try to ping you as you are already familiar with the page. Again, thank you! CorradoNai ( talk) 04:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
On 24 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Saturn in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the visual appeal of its rings (pictured) has made Saturn popular in fiction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saturn in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Saturn in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
On 1 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Time viewer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that science fiction authors who want to avoid the paradoxes associated with time travel may instead write about time viewers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Time viewer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Time viewer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
On 11 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Brian Stableford blamed the cancellation of the follow-up to his 2006 book Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia on the availability of information online? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uranus in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The article Uranus in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uranus in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Uranus in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sun in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The article Sun in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sun in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Sun in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Just looking at your talk page above, this seems well deserved :)
I hope I'll be able to return to the topic area in the near future and help you out a bit! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC) |
Please see Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. What do you think about the new hook? BorgQueen ( talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Neptune in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Neptune in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Neptune in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim O'Doherty -- Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 19:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
You are, I think, the person who brought the "...in fiction" articles for every planet in this system, and the Sun, to GA. Thank you for your dedication. Heavy Water ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC) |
On 7 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sun in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1961 film Barabbas portrayed a solar eclipse (pictured) by shooting during a real one? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sun in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Sun in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be attempting a GT of the main celestial bodies of the Solar System as portrayed in fiction. If you are, I think that is a very interesting idea. Either way, keep up the good work! QuicoleJR ( talk) 01:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
On 5 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Uranus in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in early depictions of Uranus in fiction, the planet was portrayed as solid (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Uranus in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Uranus in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 12:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 8,882 views (740.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2023 – nice work! |
Bruxton ( talk) 15:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
On 12 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neptune in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that English-speaking elephants can be okay on Neptune in fiction, but a solid surface is not? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neptune in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Neptune in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
The article looks much better thanks to you, but I wonder about the need to have every one of his books cited. Could we just do a blanket attribution somehow rather than using the same cites on every line? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 01:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The Science Fiction Barnstar | ||
I know you're still working on it, but you've already earned this. Thanks for doing such a great job overhauling George Griffith. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC) |
Aah I am such a bad Wikipedia editor. Doing it here instead. Sorry to mess up your talk page. I wen't through all (I think) your comment on the Fungi in art page and I nominated the page for peer review. Anyways, thanks for all the work you have put into this. Cheers CorradoNai ( talk) 15:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
The Old Cosmonaut and the Construction Worker Dream of Mars is very good. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance ( talk) 03:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jack4576 -- Jack4576 ( talk) 07:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance for comments about the article, and Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jack4576 -- Jack4576 ( talk) 09:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
On 7 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bellona's Husband: A Romance, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1887 novel Bellona's Husband: A Romance by William James Roe "may be the earliest example of the time in reverse tale presented in full-fledged narrative form"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bellona's Husband: A Romance. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Bellona's Husband: A Romance), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
planets in fiction
Thank you for quality articles such as Bellona's Husband: A Romance, for the series from Moon in fiction to planets and sun and more, for quality reviewing, for a user name I will remember, for FAC ambition ( Mars in fiction), "That's a great find and a very interesting read (to me, at least)", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2857 of Precious, a prize of QAI. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
On 8 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Honeymoon in Space, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that George Griffith's 1901 novel A Honeymoon in Space contains what may be the first space suits in fiction (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Honeymoon in Space. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, A Honeymoon in Space), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Started, DYKed, enjoy :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi -- just stopping by to say how impressed I have been with your diligence at the FAC for Mars in fiction. I thought when you took it on that it would be very tough to get it through FAC -- selecting exactly what to put in, and imposing readable coherence on an article that must always be threatening to degenerate into lists, must have been a nightmare. You've done an extraordinary job, and the result is a marvellous bit of reference material -- exactly what the encyclopedia needs. I also happened to notice that you'd failed Boots theory, and took a look at the review page out of curiosity, and was impressed again, this time at the way you zeroed in on exactly what was weak in the article. I wish all nominators and reviewers were able to meet the high standards you're setting. Thanks. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Honeymoon in Space you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress ( talk) 02:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The article A Honeymoon in Space you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:A Honeymoon in Space and Talk:A Honeymoon in Space/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress ( talk) 03:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The article A Honeymoon in Space you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Honeymoon in Space for comments about the article, and Talk:A Honeymoon in Space/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress ( talk) 03:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 31 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 31, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. There's a lot of pencil-whipping that goes on at DYK. It's nice when a reviewer digs a little deeper and finds problems that need fixing. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 09:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pluto in fiction you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 16:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - opening IP failed to notify you, thanks, Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Youve recently indicated uncited paragraphs on the Abdullahi dan Fodio page. I’ve made citations for these paragraphs. Are there any other parts of the article that needs further improvements? BlueSahelian ( talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Bellona's Husband: A Romance you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance for comments about the article, and Talk:Bellona's Husband: A Romance/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 02:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Pluto in fiction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pluto in fiction for comments about the article, and Talk:Pluto in fiction/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 11:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
On 31 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pluto in fiction, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fictional life on Pluto has included mist creatures and crystals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pluto in fiction. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Pluto in fiction), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
BorgQueen ( talk) 00:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I just reported Vasai1509 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hugo Refachinho. Given that you seem to be an expert on this socker, I am asking for your input at the investigation. Thank you! ~ Pbritti ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know I'm around tomorrow, then out of office for some days. Will be able to fix small and simple things intermittently; anything complex will have to wait. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Bro, see this article Castillo San Felipe del Morro, Spanish Empire, Battle of Colhuacatonco, this user:Pepallis is contantly making vandalism in this page, also reverting my additions, I suggest take a look on him.-- Arequipa belleza ( talk) 05:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I haven't had time to make comments, but I started reading and noticed you mentioned both planetary romance and sword and planet, so I wanted to let you know I've just proposed here that the latter should redirect to the former, in case you have an opinion on it. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Planetary Romance, also called Sword and Planetin the foreword to Old Venus. I can't really take credit for finding that or adding it to the Venus in fiction article however— Piotrus discovered the source and added the relevant part with this edit before I started editing the article. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years and Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie ( talk) 02:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Plunge into Space you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years for comments about the article, and Talk:Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie ( talk) 07:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
How is the Good Topic going? QuicoleJR ( talk) 00:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Good morning, I wanted to tell you that I have received an IP or account blocking due to vandalism without doing anything wrong, you tell me that the information that I have put in Spanish Empire is false, I tell you that I have obtained the information from a reliable source and I have calculated it myself in this case. Thank you and I hope you help me. WikiPat23 ( talk) 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
The article A Plunge into Space you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Plunge into Space for comments about the article, and Talk:A Plunge into Space/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AryKun -- AryKun ( talk) 07:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Imagining Mars: A Literary History you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Frzzl -- Frzzl ( talk) 10:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)